powerclown

Perhaps we agree on where we want to go; we differ on how to get there.

powerclown

Update: I would use opinions from these journalists as further argument against impeachment of W at this time. There is another side to TSP and FISA and surveillance in general which I don't think is being accurately represented in this thread.

Reagan Would Have Ordered Terrorist Surveillance
by Edwin Meese III
Posted: 02/12/2007

This is the eleventh in an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Edwin Meese, who was Reagan’s first presidential counselor and then attorney general, addresses the necessity of intercepting terrorist communications and its constitutionality.

It is always risky, if not presumptuous, to declare how a former President would act in situations that have arisen more than 15 years after he left office. But there are valuable lessons to be learned from the example of the executive leadership set by Ronald Reagan and the principles that guided his decisions.

President Reagan believed that fidelity to the Constitution was the primary responsibility of every public official and that the solemn oath he took to preserve and protect our Founding Charter was a solemn trust. But he knew the document thoroughly and understood the powers it conferred on a President as well as the limitations it prescribed. As a student of history, particularly the founding of our nation, Reagan appreciated the role that the drafters of the Constitution set out for the chief executive, including the responsibilities of the commander in chief to insure the defense of the nation and its people.


Used During Cold War

That is why I believe Ronald Reagan would take the same position our current President and the Department of Justice took on the subject of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Under this program the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts and records international communications between a telephone located in a foreign country and one in the United States when one or both ends of the line involve known or suspected terrorists. Similar surveillance activity was utilized during the Cold War, including the period of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, to obtain intelligence about threats to our national security. At that time, this highly classified work was carried out in secret so as not to warn enemy agents of our surveillance capabilities. It is only in recent years that irresponsible news media elements have revealed the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the public, thus compromising a valuable means of thwarting terrorist threats to our country.

The controversy over the NSA's surveillance program is based on the contention of some that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted in 1978 is the exclusive authorization of foreign intelligence surveillance and that any NSA activity must comply with all of its requirements. These opponents argue that even the President cannot order international communications interception without going through the FISA process, even in wartime.


History of FISA

But this view ignores the legislative history of FISA as well as the judicial determinations that have occurred since its enactment. Ronald Reagan believed that under the Constitution the President has the inherent authority, as the commander in chief, to direct a military intelligence agency, such as the NSA, to intercept enemy communications during wartime or when necessary to protect the national security. This has been the consistent position of every administration before and since the enactment of FISA. During congressional hearings on the FISA legislation during the Carter Administration, then-Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell testified that the FISA bill being considered could not interfere with the President’s inherent constitutional authority to order communications surveillance for intelligence purposes.

It is not only the lawyers in the White House and the Department of Justice who hold this view supporting executive authority for communications intelligence activities. Every court that has ever ruled on this issue, including the FISA Court of Appeals, has supported the view that a President has inherent constitutional power to authorize measures such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program and that this power is at its greatest during wartime. There is only one exception to this judicial record: the recent decision by a single federal district court judge who ruled against the NSA program. Her ruling has been extensively criticized by legal experts from widely differing political and philosophical viewpoints and lacks any legal or persuasive merit.

As he demonstrated during the Cold War, Ronald Reagan believed that a President should use every legitimate means to protect the nation. That is why he would understand that intercepting terrorist communications that might provide early warning about an attack similar to those on Sept. 11, 2001, is critical to our society. Further, he would know that obtaining such information is essential to establishing the reasonable cause to then obtain an electronic surveillance warrant under FISA so that further investigation can proceed.

President Reagan believed that our nation's chief executive should energetically use his authority as commander in chief in matters concerning national security. He demonstrated this in ordering the rescue operation in Grenada, in supporting the Freedom Fighters in Nicaragua and in dealing with the Soviet Union. I believe he would counsel that a President should do no less in terms of authorizing communications intelligence efforts that could save this country from another devastating terrorist attack.



ACLU Hails Major Defeat in War on Terror
by Peter Ferrara
Posted: 08/29/2006

The 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is a critical protection for the civil liberties of Americans, and should not be lightly cast aside. But liberal/left critics of President Bush’s War on Terror are quite wrong in suggesting to the American people that this amendment requires a judicially issued search warrant before any search or seizure can be made.

The courts have upheld 30 different exceptions to the search warrant requirement of the Amendment. These include cases where the lives of officers or others are threatened, hot pursuit, border searches, school locker searches, or where emergency conditions exist.

The key word in the 4th Amendment is unreasonable. That means under certain conditions a search or seizure without a warrant may be allowed.

But the ACLU has disdained all such notions of reasonableness in its now temporarily successful jihad against the international surveillance program of the NSA. Under this program, U.S. intelligence officials have monitored and wiretapped phone calls from overseas phone numbers believed to be used by terrorists to phone numbers in the U.S.

As President Bush has said, if al Qaeda is calling someone in the United States, we want to know about it. Such phone calls may reveal not only terrorist plots, but terrorist cells within the U.S.

After this program was recently revealed by the New York Times, the ACLU has been concocting crackpot lawsuits to have it declared unconstitutional. They finally found an apparently crackpot judge, Anna Diggs Taylor in a Detroit District Court, who yesterday did exactly that.

Judge Taylor, appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1978, has a long history of hard left political activism and Democrat party partisanship. Her opinion wildly states that the President argues “he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the first and fourth amendments of the Constitution itself.” She then takes a shot at the Bush family in saying, “There are no hereditary Kings in America….” She concludes that there is no power for the President’s NSA surveillance program in the Constitution, even though the Constitution extensively grants the President power over national defense, military affairs, and foreign policy.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero hailed Taylor’s ruling calling it "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror." In this the ACLU is finally right about something.

Notice how a cabal of left-wing extremists has worked together to now almost destroy a major weapon in the War on Terror. First the program is revealed by the increasingly far left New York Times. Then a phony legal war is pursued against the terrorist surveillance by the hard left ACLU. They manage to get the case before a nutcase lefty Federal judge in Detroit, and voila America loses a major weapon against terrorists trying to commit mass murder against us.

Here are the reasons why the NSA surveillance program is reasonable and constitutional even without judicially issued search warrants for each phone number tapped.

First, the surveillance is limited to phone calls from overseas, where U.S. constitutional protections do not apply, using phone numbers tied to terrorists and their activities, into this country. Those calls may well be to terrorist agents and cells in the U.S. and involve terrorist acts of mass murder against American citizens. Indeed, those terrorist acts could involve attacks involving poison gas or other chemical weapons, biological weapons, or even nuclear weapons. So the stakes are of the highest value.

Secondly, the surveillance appears to have been successful in stopping actual attacks against Americans. Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy director of national intelligence, said last December, “This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.” Indeed, wiretaps and intercepted communications were key to British intelligence stopping the terrorist plot to blow up ten airliners over the Atlantic earlier this month, and this precise NSA surveillance program may have been involved in assisting them

Thirdly, the surveillance does not involve law enforcement or gathering evidence for criminal proceedings. It involves foreign intelligence gathering information on possible attacks against the American people by foreign combatants, to be used to stop those attacks. Indeed, phone recordings from the wiretaps would never be submitted in a court for prosecutions because then the methods and operation of the program would have to be publicly revealed. For this reason, no liberty is even restricted by the program other than the liberty to commit terrorist acts.

Fourthly, no one has uncovered a single instance of abuse of this program. The plaintiffs in the Detroit case could not prove that they had been wrongly harmed by the program, or even that they had been wiretapped. They were journalists, researchers, and lawyers who claimed that they needed to speak to terrorists abroad for valid reasons, but feared these terrorists would now not talk to them due to fear of the possible NSA surveillance. Because they could not show any actual harm, they did not even have standing to bring the suit, and it is likely to be thrown out on appeal for this reason alone.

Fifthly, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) set up special courts for investigators to obtain warrants for domestic surveillance of suspected foreign agents. It does not apply to foreign intelligence surveillance of enemy combatants operating overseas, or to communications to or from those combatants with someone inside the U.S. That comes within the military powers of the president, not domestic law enforcement. It is akin to battlefield intelligence, for which no warrants are needed.

Sixthly, obtaining a warrant even from a FISA court requires a voluminous filing to meet exacting standards. That would be an undue burden on intelligence agents trying to get information to stop an attack on the U.S. from foreign combatants overseas. The attack may be imminent, or the trail may be lost if we do not act immediately. Moreover, we may rightly not impose a probable cause standard before the activities of such foreign combatants are monitored for the essentially military activity of stopping an attack.

Every president since World War II has claimed the same power as President Bush and used warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence surveillance. In 1994, then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick defended President Clinton’s use of that power by saying, “Case law supports that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

Until yesterday, no U.S. court has ever ruled that the president did not have this authority. Indeed, the FISA court itself has said that all the “courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” Judge Looney Tunes Taylor never addressed any of these precedents.

For all of these reasons, and others, this rootless decision itself born of extremist plotters, will be reversed on appeal.

dc_dux

Journalists?

Is this the same Ed Meese, counsel to Pres Reagan, who resigned under a cloud in the Iran-Contra investigation?

And the same Peter Ferrara, who took money from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and wrote op-ed articles favorable to Abramoff?

The FISA law is pretty clear about obtaining a warrant, even after the fact in emergency cases, and it was violated at Bush's direct actions and orders.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

powerclown

Same Ed Meese. You don't value his opinion? He went to Yale and UC-Berkeley. He's an intelligent guy. Were you looking for the purest journalistic pontifications of Jesus Christ himself? Meese must know *something* about what he's talking about. Is it that we don't want to read Ed Meese's political opinions, or is it that we don't want to read American conservative opinion in general? How about this: if you don't approve of this next journalist, you give me the name of a conservative journalist you do trust and I'll track down one of his/her articles.


Checked and Unbalanced
George Will's diatribe against the NSA program is meritless.
February 16, 2006 3:44 PM

By Andrew C. McCarthy

As a reverent admirer of George Will, it pains me to say that his diatribe today against the National Security Agency's terrorist-surveillance program is an embarrassing magpie of hyperbole and error.

Will's premise is that the administration, in authorizing the program, has promulgated the "monarchical doctrine" that "whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be." This is so outlandish as to defy measure. Neither the administration's position nor the NSA program have much of anything to do with governance in the domestic sphere—which, it should be observed, is the only sphere in which one of the branches Will refers to, the judiciary, ever has a role in governance.

A Foreign Affair
Will can suggest otherwise only by misrepresenting the program as "warrantless surveillance...targeting American citizens on American soil." In fact, the program targets al Qaeda, a foreign terrorist organization with which we are at war, and which is energetically working (it tells us unabashedly) toward a strike against our homeland which would dwarf the carnage of 9/11. The program targets, moreover, only international communications by this foreign enemy, some of which cross U.S. borders. Of course, it is settled law that warrantless searches at the border are an entirely legitimate exercise of executive power, even in peacetime. Anomalously, Will finds warrantless searches in wartime of possible enemy commands to launch a strike that could kill countless thousands of Americans to be an exercise in despotism.

The administration's position, and the program, is pertinent to governance in the field of foreign relations. In that field, whether Will likes it or not, the president has primacy—primacy of the same sort the Supreme Court enjoys in interpreting the Constitution and Congress in funding governmental operations. The president does not enjoy such primacy because of some Bush administration ipse dixit. It has been the law ever since we began living under the Constitution.

Will is offended by what he calls "the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the 'sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs[,]'" a contention Will preposterously calls a "non sequitur [that] is refuted by the Constitution's plain language." Perhaps Will—who evidently has no problem relying on Supreme Court precedent when he thinks it advances his position—should take a look at what that tribunal has said in this regard.

What The Court Does Say
He'll find that what he is quoting is not "the administration's argument." Rather, it is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the very Constitution to which Will alludes. Specifically, the Court divined in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export (1936) the "delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of foreign relations." (Emphasis added.) The Court reaffirmed the point a half-century later in Navy v. Egan (1988), observing that it had long "recognized the generally accepted view that foreign policy was the province and responsibility of the Executive" (internal quotation omitted).

The Court has not rested this view solely on the president's status as commander-in-chief but on all the powers vested in him under Article II. This includes all of the executive power itself which, as the Framers well understood, needed a far wider berth in the international arena if the Nation was to be secure. Will, however, curiously contends that this concept cannot be squared with the Constitution the framers bequeathed us which, according to Will, "empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws 'necessary and proper' for the execution of all presidential powers." (Emphasis in original.)

And what the Constitution Says
But he's wrong. For example, the Constitution does not empower Congress to ratify treaties. The president ratifies treaties (as well as makes them); "Congress" has no role at all—the Senate must consent to them, but such consent does not bind the president to put treaties into effect. The power to declare war has never been a power to make, authorize, or initiate war. Indeed, as demonstrated in The Powers of War and Peace by Professor John Yoo, formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Framers altered a draft of the Constitution that would have empowered Congress to "make" war, settling on "declare," a term of art which, at the time of the founding, merely meant the provision of formal notice to the world (including the enemy) of a state of total war (as opposed to some lesser degree of hostilities), which triggered various rights for belligerents under international law. It is no accident either that the U.S., despite having participated in numerous wars, has formally declared war only five times in its history (and not since 1941), or that our British forebears frequently fought wars with no formal declaration whatsoever.

Furthermore, the "necessary and proper" clause sheds exactly no light on the current controversy. It is freely conceded that Congress has the authority to make laws necessary and proper to vindicate the powers enumerated in the Constitution. That hardly means, however, that the president is impotent to take measures consistent with his own inherent authority under Article II—and the president, it bears noting, is the only governmental officer bound by our fundamental law "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section 1). Nor does it mean the president is bound to honor congressional enactments (such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)) to the extent their operation would constrain his inherent authority—a position supported historically by administrations of both parties because of the elementary proposition that a statute cannot trump the Constitution.

It is simply a fact that there is a chasm between presidential authority in the domestic and foreign realms. In domestic affairs, we live in a single political community, the government has a monopoly on the use of force, and courts are imposed as a bulwark to protect Americans from executive and legislative overreaching. There, Congress has broad powers to regulate executive action. Not so in the international arena. There, we confront unpredictable contingencies including enemies claiming the power to use massive lethal force. The circumstances are not hospitable to the same kind of antecedent law-making that is practical in domestic affairs. That is why the framers provided for an energetic executive, not national security by committee.

It is also, no doubt, why, in United States v. Brown (1973), the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in upholding the president's inherent Article II authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence gathering, asserted that "[r]estrictions upon the President's power which are appropriate in cases of domestic security become artificial in the context of the international sphere." It is why, when FISA became law in 1978, President Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, stressed that FISA did not (and, indeed, could not) vitiate the president's inherent authority under Article II. It is why, in 1994, President Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified that the president maintained his inherent Article II authority to order warrantless searches even when FISA was expanded to regulate such searches. And it is why, even after a quarter-century of FISA, the highest and most specialized court ever to review that statute, the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, observed in 2002: "[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... We take for granted that the President does have that authority." (Emphasis added.)

A Spurious Citation
Will's apparent response to the weight of this authority—I must say "apparent" because he doesn't deign to discuss any of it—is to misstate the resolution of the 1952 steel seizure case. There, he claims, the Supreme Court "held that presidential authority is weakest when it clashes with Congress." But that was not the holding of the Court. It was the view of Justice Robert Jackson in a concurring opinion. Even Justice Jackson, furthermore, did not claim that presidential power disappears when it is at loggerheads with Congress's will. Instead, the outcome of the historic and inevitable competition between the political branches depends on the nature of the powers implicated as they relate to the dispute at issue.

The steel seizure case, though it occurred against the backdrop of the Korean War, involved presidential interference in a domestic collective bargaining dispute. To the contrary, the NSA program involves foreign intelligence collection, a matter as to which we needn't speculate the extent of presidential authority—as we have seen, that authority is plenary. Little wonder then, as pointed out in a recent letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee by attorney Bryan Cunningham (a former official in the Clinton and Bush administrations), that it was the very same Justice Jackson who wrote for the Court only two years earlier, in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), that the president was "exclusively responsible" for the "conduct of diplomatic and foreign affairs."

A Further Misunderstanding
Will's attack on the administration's secondary position, viz., that its NSA program is authorized to operate outside FISA's strictures by Congress's post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), is specious. He begins, yet again, by either misunderstanding or misstating the argument.

The administration is not, as Will avers, "incoherently" claiming that it thinks Congress tacitly blessed warrantless monitoring even though it really believes Congress would have declined such authority if asked specifically. As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained in answers to questions posed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, the administration believed it could not get FISA amended to approve the NSA program without compromising operational details of the program, which would inexorably have alerted the enemy to our capabilities. Thus it went ahead, not because it thought Congress unreceptive but because it believed—quite plausibly—that it already had valid legal grounds and pursuing additional, more specific authority would have undermined wartime effectiveness.

Will then grouses: "the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes." But it is Will's contention that is risible. Let's leave aside that the president's authority over foreign intelligence collection is so firmly entrenched as to require little discussion. In point of fact, what this administration "famously" did only two years ago is argue to the Supreme Court that the AUMF tacitly authorized the detention without trial of American-citizen enemy combatants. The Supreme Court accepted that argument in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), another case Will neglects to mention. The Court accepted the argument, it bears underscoring, based on the very rationale that applies perfectly here: the AUMF provides authority for all the fundamental aspects of war-waging. Those include the detention of enemy combatants, and they include—just as basically—the penetration of enemy communications.

Finally, as George Will knows as well as anyone, the president is no monarch. While his polemic is counterfactually entitled "No Checks, Many Imbalances," the Congress has the ultimate and complete check here. It can, right this minute, vote to cut off appropriations for the program. Naturally, it won't do that because it recognizes that the program is necessary and that the American people are not offended by the manner in which it has been implemented.

And for all Will's bombast about the Constitution's plain language and structure, it is difficult to imagine anything that would have been more startling to those who crafted our fundamental law than the suggestion that the president of the United States needs a federal judge's permission to intercept the international communications of a wartime enemy that seeks, above all else, to mount a massive attack against the homeland.

—Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Willravel

Can you please put articles on quotes?

dc_dux

Journalists dont express opinions....they are supposed to report facts.

IMO, Meese's opinion of the limits on the executive branch are tainted by the excesses of the Reagan administration re: Iran/Contra, in which he played a significant role. BTW, Hillary went to Wellesley and Yale Law School. Does that make her equally intelligent and "must know 'something' about what she is talking about". (Meese's education is a specious argument to say the least)

I value many conservative opinion makers, George Will and Willliam Buckley, among them, although I rarely agree with either and I dont consider them to be journalists.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

powerclown and dc_dux,your exchange inspired me start a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120775">thread</a> that uses Meese offered as a journalist as an example of the divide on this forum, and in the country. It gets that issue out of here, and we'll get to see if everyone actually wants to discuss this thread's topic.....or the predictable issues of introducing a supporting author who many others view as the Alberto Gonzales of his era....and more...

Meese's article was written in February, and since this week, the number of federal judges who have ruled that Bush has violated the FISA laws, has doubled:
powerclown....where do you find these people? We can talk about Andrew C McCarthy over on the other thread, too. He is a member of this crew:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...dor_Associates

aceventura3

I get that, but there is the principle and there is the reality. The question is complex when it comes to drawing a line and determining when it has been crossed. The reality is that this is a very complex subject.

Who is "them"? Why are "they" not "us"? If you do something in public and I track what you do, without your knowledge, is that "secrete" even though what you did is in the open public realm? If you use a wireless phone, baby monitor, intercom, etc., and I pick up the signal and listen without your knowledge is that a violation of your Constitutional rights? Why do you think "they" are interested in what you order on your pizza, why would anyone care? At what point does the use of "black box" or GPS information become a violation of you Constitutional rights? If authorities track your location after you have dialed 911 is that an illegal use of you phone records? there are hundreds of questions related to this issue, and the pretense that it is clear cut is wrong in my opinion.

Something like a repeat of The McCarthy hearings would concern me. I am not worried about "them" paying much attention to me talking to my wife about what we are having for dinner over the telephone. But, I live a pretty boring life - if I had something to hide, I guess I would be worried.

Ask the folks who voted to use military force against Iraq. I know why Bush asked for the authority, I don't know why some voted for it. Then, ask them why the voted to continue funding.

I am sure there are a few government flunkies who want to see who Paris Hilton is calling. If they abuse their authority they should be fired and possibly put in jail. The goals of the program are as stated. If the Administration is using information for political gain, they should be put in jail. If there was any proof of that I would be 100% behind impeachment.

I don't trust anyone outside of my immediate family. during our history there have been abuse of government power, by individuals. Sooner or later those individuals will be held accountable for their actions, in this life or whatever comes next. It is unfortunate but life is not fair, occasionally innocent people will be the victim of those who are corrupt. In this case, I don't see any victims.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

ace....we had a system that was checked and balanced by impartial judicial oversight, as a prerequisite for invesitgators to obtain a warrant....and now we have this....and no...."they" are not "us".....anymore.....

Here's a lawyer who claims to still be employed at DOJ, and.....after this is distributed, only because he enjoys some civil service protections against immediate punishment or dismissal:
...and, as of today, the executive branch has declared that it is not accountable....it's time to cut off all funding to the executive branch:
Isn't it odd that more Americans, in recent polls, favor impeachment of President Bush, than favored impeachment of President Clinton, <b>while he actually was being impeached....yet the "liberal" media treats the subject of impeaching Bush as an idea "on the fringe"?</b>

aceventura3

O.k., let's assume John Koppel is 100% correct. Let's also assume Pelosi and Reid both agree and also agree with everything they have said about the administration. Let's assume the majority in both houses in Congress agree. And let's further assume 68% of the American public have no confidence in the Bush administration. Let's assume most Democrats knew of Bush's corrupt tendencies from the time he "stole" the election from Gore.

With the above as a given, nothing of merit has happened to make Bush accountable. Absolutely nothing of merit. Why?

My answer is that for the most part Bush is honest and is doing the best he can. That he has made some mistakes but has tried to fix them. That if he did step over the line, it was with the intent to protect American lives.

If you, most Democrats, those on the left, the Bush haters, truly believe what you say you believe and let Bush get away with "it", what does that say?

You have a recurring point in your posts, and I already know your position will never be changed. I have a recurring theme in my posts. If someone would give a good clear answer to my questions, my view could change. So far the answers have been unclear, evasive and off the point.

Here is another question. If Koppel truly believes in a total separation between performance and serving a partisan agenda how can he support any political appointments at DOJ? For example if the next President wins based on a party platform of going after employers who hire illegal immigrants (partisan agenda), and you have people at DOJ not willing to act on that agenda, doesn't the President have a right to fire those people based on their lack of performance relative to the agenda?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

pan6467

It's not so much what Bush may or may not have done, that bothers me. It's the fact that he put a power into motion that WILL BE ABUSED and powers that take freedoms away (just because YOU may believe that you have nothing to hide doesn't mean squat).

I just think something needs to be done so that these powers are never granted to a president or congress again.

Then again, this whole topic sort of takes the eye and attention off the true problems facing this nation, the economy, rebuilding the infrastructure, good paying jobs, getting the middle class growing again instead of shrinking.... etc etc.....

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

Intent is only part of what's going on though. If you break the law with the best intentions, you've still broken the law. Though I've seen no evidence to suggest that Bush, Cheney, Condy, etc. have any good intentions towards the American people, it would stand as irrelevant. The wiretaps, for whatever reason they were done, were done.

I guess my question would be: what makes you think that Bush is honest or is doing his best for the good of the US? So far, every move he's made has weakened us in some way. From his months of vacations pre-9/11 to Afghanistan, everything has been a fiasco, and it's all been detrimental to the US.
The general populace of the US does not have the ability to have a vote of no confidence. We live in a constitutional republic, and must follow those rules. We need to pressure our representative, and many of them are cowards. I've written to Kucinish and thanked him for his work.
The DOJ has to follow the letter of the law. If the law doesn't support the president, then the president has to appeal to the senate to enact new laws for the DOJ to follow. If the laws already exist and the DOJ refuses to follow them, he can easily dismiss them for simply not following the law.

aceventura3

There have been moments in our history when government leaders truly abused their power against innocent American citizens. Abuses during the civil rights struggle, internment camps during WWII, McCarthy hearings, FBI abuses under Hoover, etc. If there were any evidence of Bush doing anything like those abuses and targeting innocent Americans, I would be 100% on-board with you. I just don't see it.

You think Bush, Cheney and Condi have bad intentions towards the American people?

Would you ever purposefully break a law? I would. At the trial my intent may not matter, but it certainly may matter in the big picture.

Because he has done what I would have done if I were President.
The end-game has not unfolded. Your assessment is premature in my view. We may not know the answer for another 5 to 10 years. I think I understand the strategy and I understand the costs involved. I also think I understand the costs of inaction. I don't understand the alternative strategy to Bush's strategy, do you?

Just a reference to a political poll posted a few weeks ago.

DOJ has limited resources. They can not go after all federal crimes with equal vigor. The President sets the agenda,like it or not.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I believe, based on the evidence, that they prioritize their own interests not only above the American people, but above the law.
I would never break the law for my own personal gain. That's wrong, and it should be punished. I would only break the law if it were absolutely necessary to follow the spirit of the law or to follow a more important law.
You would have invaded iraq on evidence you yourself as president cherry picked? I would call that bad leadership, and pushing an agenda that serves personal goals at the expense of safety and liberty.
I feel obligated to ask: when was the endgame for Vietnam?

I can think of several alternatives.
1) Never bother Iraq again and let them take care of their own shit.
2) Full arms embargo until a revolution installed a new government.
3) Supporting rebels against Saddam.
4) Make peace with Iran.
Impartiality means no agenda. From the DOJ mission statement:
I don't care if they pull cases out of a hat, they have to be impartial.

aceventura3

Yes, my position of the Iraq war is well documented on TFP. I am not sure how you make the argument that the Iraq war was based on personal gain for Bush. Wait...oh yea, I remember - that theory was in that movie Fahrenheit 911 - the theory must be true since it was in the movie.

We failed in Vietnam. When we left hundreds of thousands died. What we should have learned from Vietnam is to never start a war we don't intend to finish with victory.

How can we make peace with Iran and support Israel's right to exist? Should we abandon Israel? Where do we fight organized terrorist groups? Should we let the ME disintegrate into chaos? I am not suggesting your 4 points are wrong or how anyone should answer the few questions I presented. I do suggest we have a serious debate on these issues. Simply saying we are at war because of Bush's oil buddies is not helpful.

O.k. the DOJ should have no agenda. If person A breaks a federal law they should receive the same treatment as person B. So if person "A" misstates their income on their federal income tax and person "B" (Libby) misstates when he first heard that Plame was a CIA agent, they both should get the same treatment for being untruthful in a sworn statement to the federal government? So, we should have a special prosecutor for every tax case, and a mistake should lead to the same treatment Libby received. I think the DOJ should have an agenda, an agenda set by the voters based on who we put in office.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

It's been made for 4 years by hundreds of people across TFPolitics. Look back across the posts of host or roachboy. Even mine.

Without going through the whole song and dance, again, this is an article that echoes my take on the invasion.
Precisely, and we should have determined that Iraq couldn't have been a win no matter what we did. The only real way Iraq could have been free of Saddam would have been an armed revolution from within Iraq. Once that started, we could have supplied the rebellion with financial and arms assistance. The real problem was, of course, that those in power in the US want control over the region. So even if Saddam was overthrown, we'd want to control whoever was in a leadership position replacing Saddam. This would have gone one of two ways: 1) they would have submitted to our economic control and would owe the world bank billions or 2) they would have resisted and the new leaders plane would be mysteriously shot down.
We can't. The ties between the US and Israel are unhealthy, and it was a mistake by the UN to establish a Jewish state, especially one that they planned on arming to the teeth for the next half a century. Israel is the second largest source of instability in the ME behind oil. What should have happened is that we would have allowed a joint Jewish/Muslim state to be established, if anything. The Ottomans left behind a lot more Muslims in the area now known as Israel than Jews or Christians. The area would have naturally been under the control of a government that was either secular or muslim, like Lebanon or Iran. This would have prevented the extreme tension between Jewish and Muslims that we see today.

Speaking now as the bell cannot be un-rung, we should be supporting one of two things: unification of Palestine and Israel, giving equal representation to each people in a government that services both people separately but equally, Or the permanent establishment of an independent and unoccupied Palestinian state with a dmz separating Israel and Palestine, and have Jerusalem as international land. Open support of Israel's war crimes against Palestine feeds the fire between both sides of militants, be they Palestinian guerilla fighters or the Israeli army. The idea would be to promote peace as much as possible, throughout not just Israel but the whole region. If, for example, we were to have sent humanitarian aid to Israel and Lebanon last year, it would have sent a strong signal that we care about the well being of the region, not just our ally/butt buddy Israel. Lebanon was just getting on with it's existence after the civil war when this serious setback actually galvanized support for the Hezbollah. That's a bad thing.
Don't pretend we live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. The job of the DOJ is simple: to be the unbiased, impartial law office for the executive branch. Obviously, they don't have the manpower to cover everything, as you and I both stated, but consistently perusing one type of litigation while consistently ignoring another is against their mandate.

dc_dux

ace....you want some examples of victims of illegal surveillance of citizens with the consent of the AG (and ultimately the WH). This is not under the warrentless wiretapping program, but just as intrusive...and it could have been you or your family.....

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said he was surprised and unaware of civil liberties violations committed by the FBI during its exercise of Patriot Act powers — including the use of so-called National Security Letters — until an internal Justice Department report uncovered them in March 2007. But Gonzales and his predecessor, John Ashcroft, were routinely sent notifications from the FBI when such violations occurred and had to be reported to the president's Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), according to documents released this month under the Freedom of Information Act. Here is a timeline:

Feb. 10, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving an intelligence investigations of a U.S. citizen that went on for more than a year without proper notification or oversight.

Feb. 14, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving a counterterrorism investigation in which agents continued the collection of electronic surveillance of a U.S. person after a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court's order had expired.

Feb. 16, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving the improper search of a peson's property in an intelligence investigation.

March 18, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving an error during a counterterrorism investigation.

March 22, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving an error made by a telephone carrier during an electronic surveillance operation. IOB Violation Report

April 21, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving the prohibited collection of email contents through a national security letter due to an error by the Internet provider

...three months of reports directly to Gonzales and then days later he goes before the Senate Intel Committee (and again before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year)and lies:
April 27, 2005 Gonzales testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in favor of renewing the U.S. Patriot Act, declaring "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...l?hpid=topnews

So do you consider this an abuse of power? Should Gonzales "be fired and possibly put in jail' as you suggested above?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

tecoyah

Ace.....lets just cut to the chase here. I ask you to defend this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVw4tpQF03Mhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVw4tpQF03M

aceventura3

I watched the video. The basis of my opinion on Gonzales and the Congressional investigation is that the wrong questions are being asked.

I don't see the importance of who put a name on the list. The important question is why the name was put on the list. If there is evidence that a termination was done illegally, that angle should be pursued. I understand the perceived need to know who put the name on the list so "they" can compel testimony to determine why the name was put on the list to then determine if any law was broken. The problem is that in this situation the "why" can be almost whatever the administration wants it to be (I put him on the list because I don't like demeanor as a ...whatever. They can be vague). Trying to prove a law was broken with these terminations will be virtually impossible.

If you want me to defend Gonzales using the same prepared statements - I can only add, that I would have done the same unless I had something new to say.

I don't know the details of these violations. If they are procedural violations, I would not consider them to be an abuse of power. I would however, expect improved procedural controls to be put in place to minimize these errors in the future.

If these violations were willful, I would expect someone to be held accountable.

If Gonzales, has the responsibility to act but failed to act, he should be confronted with his failure and be given an opportunity to explain his failure. Given the amount of time he has spent testifying to Congress, I assume the question has been asked of him. Has it been?

{added}

Is the IOB similar to an Internal Audit department? I looked at a few of the reports, they referred to AG "guidelines" violations while not describing the activity as illegal or as an abuse of power. It would be interesting to see any communication on these issues between the AG's office and the FBI. Then I think we can make a better judgment on Gonzales.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

tecoyah

aceventura3

I bet less than 0.001% of the population could give you the exact details of conversations, emails, memos, who attended meetings, times and dates of same, etc. that occurred between 6 months and a year ago. Could you? And if you don't remember perfectly, isn't it safer to say you don't know?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Why am I not surprised? No one in this administration appears to lie in your interpretation of the facts.

So you attribute Gonzales's`not acknowledging reports of violations he received over the preceding days and months as memory loss....the Libby defense.

I guess that's better than the Bush defense...as least you didnt refer to Gonzales' false statements under oath in a Congressional hearing as "Churchillian hyperbole".

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

ok, someone help me out here. What does a nation do when its chief law enforcement agent is caught lying about illegal activity?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

We try him based on evidence from an extensive investigation.

host

ace, WaPo "reporter" John Solomon, didn't include this April 5, 2005 Gonzales prepared statement, delivered, under oath, to the senate judiciary committee.
Are your saying that Gonzales is not responsible for deliberately misleading items that he included prepared statements, knowing that they will be delivered in sworn testimony, and that the contradict the information, on the exact same subject, that has been crossing his desk, for weeks?
Consider the preceding MSNBC reporting when you read the following:

....and ace, page 19 of Gonzales's sworn April 5, 2005 statement, shows that he did prepare....did do research:
Gonzales was not Atty. General when the following occurred, yet...in preparing a statement to advise the Senate Judiciary committee on how seriously the DOJ practiced safe guarding American's constitutional rights, he included this obscure anecdote, yet not only ommitted reports of FBI abuses of Patriot Act "privileges", but he assured the senators that there were no documented abuses.......

...and two years AFTER we now fid out that Gonzales was receiving a steady stream of reports of abuses by the FBI of Patriot Act provisions, we read this finding by the DOJ IG:
....so we have enough to reasonably state that Gonzales deliberately misled the senate about DOJ Patriot Act abuses and was not himslef concerned enough about eliminating those abuses, to even confirm whether the FBI <b>"had [a] policy requiring the retention of signed copies of national security letters"</b>.....

I think it is appropriate to ask this now, ace....do you receive any compensation, in money or other goods, to post your opinions on this forum?

....Or are you just an unconcerned citizen because you "have nothing to hide"? Do you see any problem cooperating if the DOJ told you that they were going to mount a closed cicuit video camera....with sound recording, in your living room, or above and behind where you sit at your computer?

tecoyah

Having an unpopular, and perhaps blinded opinion is not reason to accuse someone of being influenced by bribery. While I too, am perplexed at the apparent visualization deficiency some individuals project,and even question the ability to think critically at times, asking someone if they are payed to ignore the obvious is a bit extreme.
Ace is welcome to his opinion, as is everyone else. That he might decide to look the other way when all information points to something other than that opinion is...more of a reason to continue showing him the facts, rather than alienate him further with pointless accusation.

host

I am sincerely attempting to discover how, in the face of everything that has happened....everything that I, and many others here have posted for ace to consider, that he could post this:
Under the circumstances I just described, I wondered, in all seriousness, what could possibly be motivating ace to post as if he was an ........I can think of no other word for it...."apologist" for Bush, Cheney, and now...for Gonzales, and wondering whether he was....I thought that is was reasonable to ask if he was compensated to post....I'm sorry if it is not reasonable to ask, but there is a solid foundation for wondering if he is......

aceventura3

I acknowledged the fact that the Administration is being evasive. I acknowledged my belief that most likely Rove and Chaney where involved in the firings. I just don't think the law was broken, and that this issue is political gamesmanship. Given the games being played, I don't blame the Administration for responding in kind.

I have said the above in many ways, many times, that would be the reason you are not surprised.

Yes. You and others never respond directly to the question of what you would do under the same circumstance. I think it would be foolish to fall into a perjury trap given what happened to Libby. If your memory is not 100% correct on an issue - you have to say you don't recall when faced with a hostile Congressional committee or special prosecutor. If you guys don't understand the risks involved by now, I will never be able to explain it. So, let's just leave it at that.

I will have to remember that one - "Churchillian hyperbole". If my interest in history was my biggest flaw, I can live with it. If my biggest fault is trying to compare current events to historical events, I am happy to practice on TFP'ers. Let it be known that I will endeavor, one day...I will be so good at it that people will remember and realize that...let's just say that: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Sir Winston Churchill.

I wish! To the contrary, I have donated money to TFP a couple of times. Not to mention lost productivity. There has been some benefit to exchanges with you and others, just not monetary up to this point.

You like math, right? Here is one: Are the odds greater that you would be the subject of an illegal wiretap, or winning your state lottery...thirty times...on thirty consecutive days...playing the same numbers?


Collecting data is one thing. Reviewing the data is another. No one is going to waste their life, watching you live yours for no reason.

I don't think you understand my position. I know that the Bush administration authorized this surveillance program. I know that innocent American may be subject to having their phone calls monitored. I, however, see the complexities in this issue.

I also know what I would do if I were President. I don't know what you would do.

So, let's say you are writing a book and doing research on terrorists. Let's say you gain the confidence of a known terrorist and he tells you about specific plans to kill Americans. Let's say as a result of the surveillance program, the government was listening to your calls, and call you in for questioning. You have a right to claim the information obtained was done so without a warrant and not cooperate and take legal action. Would you? Would you cooperate? Why or why not?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....following your logic, perhaps Gonzales should have said "I dont`recall" or "I am not aware of any violations" or even "I was given numerous Intelligence Oversight Board reports over the last several months, but I was too busy to do my job and read them."

But he didnt....he said categorically that there were no violations of civil liberties

There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse."

This was during a hearing on reauthorization of the Patriot Act so if I were to assign a motive for his perjury, I would suggest it was deliberate for fear that the truth may have slowed down reauthorization..but that is just conjecture, based on my profile of Gonzales as someone repeatedly willing to ignore the law and/or lie, misrepresent or obfuscate in pursuit of Bush's political agenda.

What would I do....I wouldnt have lied like that under oath.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

tecoyah

dc_dux

I would absolutely use surveillance against suspected terrorists, including monitoring phone conversations of citizens conversing with suspected terrorist overseas...but I would do it within the law because as president I took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

I would keep Congress (at least the Intel Committees in closed session) fully informed so that they can meet their oversight responsibilities and I would seek warrants from the FISA court. In the cases where surveillance was needed immediately, I would seek the warrant after the fact as is provided for in FISA.

Bush did not of these things. He kept Congress and the FISA court totally in the dark for nearly two years of surveillance activities. Congress had (and still has) no idea who was monitored, how many were monitored or if there were any abuses of the process.

That is something I would NOT have done.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Are we talking about theoretical violations of civil liberties or proved violations (as in a court of law, under the rules of evidence and the ability to show there was no violation)? Don't we need the answer to that question before saying Gonzales lied? If there have been proved violations under Gonzales watch, given his testimony, I agree he lied, and he should resign, be fired and/or be tried for perjury.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....the Intelligence Oversight Board has the responsibility to:

(a) Inform the President of intelligence activities that any
member of the Board believes are in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, Executive orders, or Presidential
directives;

(b) Forward to the Attorney General reports received concerning
intelligence activities that the Board believes may be unlawful;

"and the IOB reported both legal and procedural violations. Not all violations of federal law need to be adjudicated in court in order reach a conclusion of an illegal act.

That should be enough for Gonzales not to have lied and said... "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse."

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I think you understand one of the points I made. If I were guilty of the crime as you outlined, I would not incriminate myself, I would plead the 5th, lie (since I was dishonest to begin with), but I would not gift wrap and hand the case to the Governor. If they wanted a conviction against me, they would need to investigate and present hard and convincing evidence of my crime. To expect a criminal to cooperate...well that is just not going to happen, unless they give the criminal some incentive or reason to do so. So, again I say Congress is asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong tree. The expectation that the Administration is going to hand over a case proving illegal activity is simply silly. If the Administration is guilty of a crime Congress needs to prove it, if they can not they need to move on.

So, first I don't think the Administration did anything illegal. Second, if they did, they won't admit it. A long time ago I concluded that this was a waste of time. At this point there is no legitimate point to trying to prove the firings were illegal, other than to score a few political points because of the embarrassing manner in which Gonzales handled this from the beginning. Perhaps Congress can have hearings on this regularly until the '08 elections, so members of Congress can look concerned as they ask the "tough questions" and come across as being deeply offended by the very thought of political appointments.

Like I said, I looked at a few of the reports and they said violations of AG "guidelines". That is a significant difference than saying there was a violation of the Constitution or illegal activity. I did not read them all, if one stands out from the others, let me know.

I assume wherever you work, audit reports are prepared. They may conclude there were procedural errors, or they may conclude there was illegal activity. I think most people in your office or department understand the difference. If you testified to Congress, would you admit there was illegal activity, until it was proved? Would you call procedural errors illegal activity?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

When did this thread become about firing US attorneys? It is about the administration's surveillance activities.

add: ace...I give up. I am convinced you will twist and turn every piece of evidence against Bush/Cheney/Gonzales that is uncovered and make every convoluted semantic argument you possibly can to avoid accept the facts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Host first mentions the DOJ in post #49.
You are the first to reference Gonzales in post #57.


This is what I say: "So, first I don't think the Administration did anything illegal. Second, if they did, they won't admit it."

Is that twisting and turning evidence against the administration?

I think your frustration comes from your unwillingness to address questions.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

tecoyah

Ace is actually....correct for the most part. I believe I actually understand his position now, and it makes sense.

1) Investigations at this point have failed to prove anything Illegal.
2) If there were illegal activities, they do not exist until proven.
3) No guilty party is likely to be forthcoming in incriminating itself.
4) The nature of these investigations make it compelling to plead the 5th or forget, rather than risk prosecution for perjury.
5) The actions of the Administration are completely understandable in this context, regardless of guilt or innocence.

He has a very valid position, and if any of us were to honestly evaluate what position we would hold if we were supportive of the Administration the stance Ace holds would be a very good one to have. From a strictly legal standpoint, the actions of the White House are acceptable. It is only from a deep distrust, and dislike of being lied to that they can be faulted.

aceventura3

Thank you. I guess if I could write my thoughts as clearly as you, I would save a lot of time.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

tecoyah:

Investigations in the limited time that Democrats have been able to control oversight hearings have revealed numerous illegal activities:
* violations of the Civil Rights act on at least 50 occasions at DOJ by using political affiliation in hiring career attorneys
* violations of the Hatch Act by the administrator of GSA for conducting political activities during work works at the request of the WH ...and political briefings at at least 15 other agencies still under investigation
* illegal restrictions on Freedom of Information requests at numerous agencies
* influence peddling (related to Abramoff)`by top officials at Dept of Interior
* and the latest revelations of violations of law, executive orders and procedures re: abuse of civil liberties by the FBI and false statements by the AG

to highlight just a few off the top of my head that have been uncovered in the last 6 months.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to perform its oversight responsibility if the administration ignores subpoenas, claims executive privilege at every turn, destroys e-mails, commits perjury in order to prevent disclosure of potentially illegal activity...all at levels not seen before by any previous administration in my lifetime.

The most bogus position of those you described:
4) The nature of these investigations make it compelling to plead the 5th or forget, rather than risk prosecution for perjury

is bullshit.....pleading the 5th or conveniently "forgetting" the facts in order to protect yourself from potential prosecution is one thing..but there is no legal or moral justification for using the 5th and stonewalling to avoid telling the truth about others, which appears to be a common practice among this administration.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

tecoyah

While few will question the accuracy of what you posted here, there are no charges filed against the players in this web of deceit. Until such time as legal proceedings become viable, they are innocent according to the Law. This is the crux of Ace's argument, and again I find it valid. It is overwhelmingly clear that obstruction has become a tool for the administration but this does not change the fact that no charges have been filed. In fact the only case to be brought thus far of any consequence was forced to focus on this very tactic, if it intended to meet with any successful prosecution.
Those avoiding testimony are likely doing so at the direction of Administration officials, and as of now they are allowed to do so. The blatant disregard for subpoena power given to congress may very well be the downfall of the obstruction tactic in the long run. As it is, Ace is still correct in his opinion, they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That they are trying to prevent access to the information that proves the guilt is beside that point.